NeoGAF has an image of a drop card said to be found in Battlefield 3, as some early copies of the game have apparently found their way into eager hands, something confirmed by this seemingly endless unboxing video for the Limited Edition. The card has a logo saying MOH 1 and a pointer to the Medal of Honor Website, suggesting its a tease for a new installment in the Medal of Honor series of first-person shooters. Interestingly, this teaser only has logos for the PS3 and the PlayStation Network. Thanks Computer and Video Games.

And as for what the genre's ultimate manifestation is... you believe it is "summer blockbusters". You know what? I am so fucking tired of summer blockbusters. And I am even more tired of never-ending bombastic, meaningless games that imitate them.

This confuses me to no end. Yes, mindless action movies blow. No one is questioning that Michael Bay has made one half-watchable movie (The Rock) and an endless stream of worst movies ever made (Transformers.)

But it's mindless because you're watching.Video games are NOT mindless because you're orchestrating the chaos. Do you guys want Driving Ms. Daisy - The Video Game?

Remember Syndicate? That game had probably the biggest explosions I can remember in any video game. It was a summer blockbuster. How about Deus Ex? Summer blockbuster. Fallout 3? I set off a nuke, which I'm pretty sure makes it a summer blockbuster. Pretty much any game with any kind of action is a summer blockbuster. They're giant levels, or set pieces, linked together. Some have good plots, but in general none come close to a good movie or a good book because plot doesn't matter quite as much and serves to control the action. Do you know why MWs plots are incoherent junk? Because they prefer to deliver the plot during loading screens rather than make you sit through cut scenes. Overall it shows a lack of talent, but I'd prefer less plot in a game designed to blow stuff up real good. Yet I wouldn't call it mindless, again, because I'm the guy blowing that stuff up.

Doom and Quake didn't even have plots. Are you guys against them now, too? Jagged Alliance had the most unrealistic, goofy characters. Should they have been better written? X-COM didn't even have characters, its plot was solely an idea thrown together in a poorly animated intro. Summer Blockbuster!

Verno wrote on Oct 24, 2011, 12:07:I kind of the liked quasi-arcade style gameplay that Day of Defeat had. It's one of Valves more significant failures that gets overlooked, they bought the team and basically did nothing with it. The game gets practically no support or attention, it's a real shame.

shihonage wrote on Oct 24, 2011, 22:08:And as for what the genre's ultimate manifestation is... you believe it is "summer blockbusters". You know what? I am so fucking tired of summer blockbusters. And I am even more tired of never-ending bombastic, meaningless games that imitate them.

Good grief, you're arguing with yourself here. I completely agree.

shihonage wrote on Oct 24, 2011, 22:08:Critics, yes. Users? Not so sure. Despite mediocre reviews, the game was selling quite well.

Well, I based that upon forum sentiment and, more tellingly, the 6.4 rating on Metacritic.

shihonage wrote on Oct 24, 2011, 22:08:It's funny that you take this offended position for "the entire genre", when the genre was actually started by Medal Of Honor series, and far as I can tell, the only game that came close to doing something "different" thus far, was Modern Warfare 1. It actually elicited emotion in me. The follow-ups did not.

By genre I mean first person shooters, not war games. The singleplayer campaigns for most war games are absolutely dire, with Brothers In Arms: Hell's Highway being one of the few to make an impression - the gameplay mechanics were a bit off but overall it was considerably better than the competition. It was the only game I could even slightly relate to. Bad Company 2 had a passable singleplayer campaign. But when compared to sci-fi games like Half-Life / HL2, Bioshock and Deus Ex: Human Revolution they all pale in comparison.

shihonage wrote on Oct 24, 2011, 22:08:You speak of exposed gameplay mechanics while MW2 and Black Ops are guilty of far worse, which I said in the part of my post you conveniently omitted. MoH actually had markers that only showed up contextually, as opposed to being blatantly "on" all the time.

In MoH SP you can actually move a little bit around, as opposed to being pushed forward in an invisible corridor.

Pacing matters. MoH had it. It had a few moments of genuine tension. MW2 and Black Ops, on the other hand, were clown college.

Again, you seem to confuse my opinion. I think the COD games have incredibly transparent gameplay mechanics that negate the immersion. But I found MoH to be worse. You had to do things in a particular way of many of the scripted sequences wouldn't trigger and the invisible walls made the game feel incredibly restrictive. And even on pacing I thought that COD did a better job.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Oct 24, 2011, 20:51:I can't argue with an opinion but few agree with you, as both critics and users alike have panned the singleplayer campaign. To suggest that it did "everything right" is an insult to the entire genre, which has put forward much more compelling and competent experiences. MoH pretty much copy&pasted the COD design philosophy, yet managed to make it even more linear and restrictive. The gameplay mechanics were far to exposed and destroyed any semblance of immersion. There was nothing original, distinctive or memorable about it. It didn't contribute morally, politically, technically, artistically, emotionally or atmospherically to the genre. It was bland.

At least games like the STALKER series do some original and have feel to them, despite the myriad technical issues they launched with. At least Metro 2033 accepted it was linear but innovated both technically and with gameplay. At least COD accepts what it is but embraces it, being the gaming equivalent of a summer blockbuster movie - over-the-top action and ever more spectacular set-pieces.

MoH was just a money grab by EA, assigned to an incompetent gaming studio. If you want to compete with the likes of COD then you have to do something different, like BF3 does, or do something better.

Critics, yes. Users? Not so sure. Despite mediocre reviews, the game was selling quite well.

It's funny that you take this offended position for "the entire genre", when the genre was actually started by Medal Of Honor series, and far as I can tell, the only game that came close to doing something "different" thus far, was Modern Warfare 1. It actually elicited emotion in me. The follow-ups did not.

You speak of exposed gameplay mechanics while MW2 and Black Ops are guilty of far worse, which I said in the part of my post you conveniently omitted. MoH actually had markers that only showed up contextually, as opposed to being blatantly "on" all the time.

In MoH SP you can actually move a little bit around, as opposed to being pushed forward in an invisible corridor.

And as for what the genre's ultimate manifestation is... you believe it is "summer blockbusters". You know what? I am so fucking tired of summer blockbusters. And I am even more tired of never-ending bombastic, meaningless games that imitate them.

Pacing matters. MoH had it. It had a few moments of genuine tension. MW2 and Black Ops, on the other hand, were clown college.

shihonage wrote on Oct 24, 2011, 18:36:That's funny, because my experience with MoH SP was mostly the opposite. It was subdued, but it did everything right. Except for running into a couple of bugs that required checkpoint restart.

I can't argue with an opinion but few agree with you, as both critics and users alike have panned the singleplayer campaign. To suggest that it did "everything right" is an insult to the entire genre, which has put forward much more compelling and competent experiences. MoH pretty much copy&pasted the COD design philosophy, yet managed to make it even more linear and restrictive. The gameplay mechanics were far to exposed and destroyed any semblance of immersion. There was nothing original, distinctive or memorable about it. It didn't contribute morally, politically, technically, artistically, emotionally or atmospherically to the genre. It was bland.

At least games like the STALKER series do some original and have feel to them, despite the myriad technical issues they launched with. At least Metro 2033 accepted it was linear but innovated both technically and with gameplay. At least COD accepts what it is but embraces it, being the gaming equivalent of a summer blockbuster movie - over-the-top action and ever more spectacular set-pieces.

MoH was just a money grab by EA, assigned to an incompetent gaming studio. If you want to compete with the likes of COD then you have to do something different, like BF3 does, or do something better.

Hump wrote on Oct 24, 2011, 16:36:ugh, just put a nail in the coffin of this IP. EA has butchered it with every attempt since the guys who formed Infinity Ward left.

Agreed. They have Battlefield as their major modern shooter title. We REALLY don't need MoH as well. Where battlefield at least has vehicles to distinguish itself against CoD, MoH had almost nothing. I enjoyed the SP campaign more so than any CoD game I've played save perhaps the original Modern Warfare itself, but even that didn't make it worth the cost.

Black Ops was a disjointed, paranoid mess that yelled at you between missions.

Both of them were like raving of crazy lunatic compared to MoH's realistic tone.

The constant "Follow" marker in both of these games destroyed a large degree of immersion, especially when acocmpanied by "next scripted sequence" markers that were all plainly visible.

When you have these markers, you do not need level design anymore. You're just exposing the level editor directly to the player, who knows damn well that between this white dot and the next, nothing scary will happen.

shihonage wrote on Oct 24, 2011, 17:48:I wonder how many people complaining about MoH SP actually do this out of their own experience, rather than out of watching a video review made by some nasal, pretentious hack from IGN or Gamespot.

I played MoH singleplayer and it was horrific. Scripting errors, linear level design and repetitive gameplay, combined with a throw away plot. It was very disappointing and I regret buying it. Everyone else I've talked with about it felt the same. Danger Close should never be allowed to make another videogame. Seriously. COD games are usually linear, overly scripted, over-the-top and shallow but they're at least a damn sight more enjoyable than MoH singleplayer, which was a complete abortion of a game.

The multiplayer was a completely different affair, being designed by DICE. It was generic but enjoyable enough, though didn't hold my attention for long.

MoH needs to be shelved. It doesn't stand a chance against COD or BF and if its made by Danger Close then it's guaranteed to be another trainwreck. This was the same studio than ran the C&C franchise into the ground with C&C4 - a game that certainly didn't warrant the 64 it managed on Metacritic (the user score was 2.1, which gives you some idea of how popular it was).